DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
CLAIM INTERPRETATION
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are: first transferring unit, mapping unit, second transferring unit and generation unit in claim 15.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
The specification discloses in [0013]-[0017] that the apparatus includes a first transferring unit, a mapping unit, a second transferring unit and a generation unit. The corresponding structure is the apparatus, where the apparatus is, for example, a cell phone, a tablet computer, a laptop computer, a wearable device or a personal computer ([0033]).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
Claim(s) 18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter. The claim(s) does/do not fall within at least one of the four categories of patent eligible subject matter because they can read on computer software. Computer programs claimed as computer listings per se: the descriptions or expressions of the programs are not physical things. They are neither computer components nor statutory processes as they are not acts being performed. Such claimed computer programs do not define any structural or functional interrelationships between the computer program and other claimed elements of a computer, which permit the computer program’s functionality to be realized. A computer program is merely a set of instructions capable of being executed by a computer. The computer program itself is not a process. The “computer program product” recited in claim 18 is nothing more than computer software. Since the claimed system can be interpreted as only including computer software, and does not recite or include machines, manufactures, or compositions of matter, then claim 18 does not appear to be statutory under 35 USC 101. The specification discloses in [0227], “... the embodiments of the present disclosure may be provided as methods, systems, or computer program products. Accordingly, the embodiments of the present disclosure may employ the form of fully hardware embodiments, fully software embodiments, or embodiments combining software and hardware aspects. Furthermore, the embodiments of the present disclosure can be in the form of a computer program product implemented on one or more computer-usable storage media including computer usable program code.”
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1-17, 19 and 20 are allowed.
The following is an examiner’s statement of reasons for allowance: References Kim et al. U.S. Pub. No. 2018/0226032, Allard et al. U.S. Patent No. 11,302,287 and Zhang et al. U.S. Patent No. 8,654,141 are made of record as teaching the art of generating a color mapping card. Kim is considered to be the closes prior art. Kim teaches that the input RGB image data is an SDR image or an HDR image. (Kim, [0031]). When the input RGB data is an HDR image, the timing controller generates a data signal based on the SDR image by compensating the input RGB image data (second color set). (Kim, [0035]). Also, the HSV converter converts the input RGB image data to image data based on an HSV color space (4th color set). (Kim, [0047], Figs. 1-2). And, the HDR image processor receives input RGB data based on the SDR image (second color set), which is the converted to RGB image data HDR, based on the HDR image. The HDR image processor then provides the RGB image data HDR to the HSC converter (5th color set). (Kim, [0092]). Allard teaches transforming an SDR image into an HDR image with a wider color gamut. (Allard, col. 3, lines 25-30, col. 4, lines 63-66, col. 9, lines 64-66). Zhang teaches a gamma block to apply gamma correction to the input pixel data after color conversion (third color set), using lookup tables (color mapping card) for accurate gamma correction. However, none of the prior art teaches or suggests:
From claim 1 – “transferring colors in the first color set, the second color set and the third color set to colors in an HSV color space to obtain a fourth color set, a fifth color set, and a sixth color set corresponding thereto respectively; and performing color mapping on colors in the fourth color set on the basis of colors in the fifth color set and corresponding colors in the sixth color set to generate a color mapping card under the first color display standard.” Claims 1-17, 19 and 20 depend from claim 1 and include all of the limitations of claim 1.
From claim 15 – “a second transferring unit, configured to transfer colors in the first color set, the second color set and the third color set to colors in an HSV color space to obtain a fourth color set, a fifth color set, and a sixth color set corresponding thereto respectively; and a generation unit, configured to perform color mapping on colors in the fourth color set on the basis of colors in the fifth color set and corresponding colors in the sixth color set to generate a color mapping card under the first color display standard.”
From claim 16 – “transfer colors in the first color set, the second color set and the third color set to colors in an HSV color space to obtain a fourth color set, a fifth color set, and a sixth color set corresponding thereto respectively; and perform color mapping on colors in the fourth color set on the basis of colors in the fifth color set and corresponding colors in the sixth color set to generate a color mapping card under the first color display standard.” Claims 19 and 20 depend from claim 16 and include all of the limitations of claim 16.
Any comments considered necessary by applicant must be submitted no later than the payment of the issue fee and, to avoid processing delays, should preferably accompany the issue fee. Such submissions should be clearly labeled “Comments on Statement of Reasons for Allowance.”
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Andrivon et al. U.S. Pub. No. 2020/0394775 – which teaches, for example, converting from HDR RGB to SDR YUV ([0052]).
Gish et al. U.S. Pub. No. 2013/0148029 – which teaches converting an input video signal represented in a first color space with a first color gamut in a first dynamic range, to a video signal represented in a second color space with a second color gamut in a second dynamic range ([0035].
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DONNA J RICKS whose telephone number is (571)270-7532. The examiner can normally be reached on M-F 7:30am-5pm EST (alternate Fridays off).
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Devona Faulk can be reached on 571-272-7515. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see https://ppair-my.uspto.gov/pair/PrivatePair. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/Donna J. Ricks/Examiner, Art Unit 2618
/DEVONA E FAULK/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2618
Prosecution Insights